I'm surprised that the single threaded performance of the i3-8130U came out marginally better than the i7-7500U, considering the i7 has a higher clock speed, and rest of the specs appearing to be equal. The i3 is obviously 8th gen over 7th but what is giving it the edge I wander?

Anyway, I be interested to see which one of these CPUs you guys would recommend or perhaps another CPU altogether, that fits the requirements and budget. Many thanks

(11-29-2018, 11:11 AM)DJBarry004 Wrote: For that price range you can find a couple of gaming laptops with higher-end, non-ULV processors (and with better cooling).

They do sacrifice portability though - battery, size and weight are often not really a focus for anything but the most expensive "gaming laptop".

@OP: Both those CPUs will likely be more limited by the chassis power and heat limits than their max possible clocks and specs. So it's hard to recommend either without actually trying the laptop in question and seeing where they throttle.

(11-29-2018, 11:11 AM)DJBarry004 Wrote: For that price range you can find a couple of gaming laptops with higher-end, non-ULV processors (and with better cooling).

Thanks, I understood it that emulation required CPU clock speed above all else. Therefore, I was looking at CPU horse power speed for emulation, and can't seem to find CPU with higher clock speeds than the i7-7500U for the budget, at least not in the UK.

(11-29-2018, 11:24 AM)JonnyH Wrote: They do sacrifice portability though - battery, size and weight are often not really a focus for anything but the most expensive "gaming laptop".

@OP: Both those CPUs will likely be more limited by the chassis power and heat limits than their max possible clocks and specs. So it's hard to recommend either without actually trying the laptop in question and seeing where they throttle.

Ah yes, thanks. If I understand it correctly, assuming power and thermal conditions aren't favourable, how about just comparing, at worst case, base clock speed, i3-8130U @ 2.2 GHz Vs i7-7500U @ 2.7 GHz. I would have said i7-7500U until the i3-8130U single threaded performance bested it marginally, plus the i3 seems more cost effective where I am.

(11-29-2018, 11:38 AM)templar701 Wrote: Ah yes, thanks. If I understand it correctly, assuming power and thermal conditions aren't favourable, how about just comparing, at worst case, base clock speed, i3-8130U @ 2.2 GHz Vs i7-7500U @ 2.7 GHz. I would have said i7-7500U until the i3-8130U single threaded performance bested it marginally, plus the i3 seems more cost effective where I am.

In terms of performance at a specific clock, the 7500u and 8130u both have exactly the same architecture and thus exactly the same performance. So the one with the highest clock will be fastest.

The problem is that comparing the base speed isn't useful if one laptop can sustain a higher boost indefinitely - or even throttles below the base clock (which can happen).

(11-29-2018, 11:51 AM)JonnyH Wrote: In terms of performance at a specific clock, the 7500u and 8130u both have exactly the same architecture and thus exactly the same performance. So the one with the highest clock will be fastest.

The problem is that comparing the base speed isn't useful if one laptop can sustain a higher boost indefinitely - or even throttles below the base clock (which can happen).

Ah thanks, that makes sense, so have to watch out for how a specific laptop manages the CPU with power, heat, cooling etc. Assuming power consumption is not a factor, generally speaking would you say a higher wattage draw is generally better, i.e. power for CPU fan etc. Seems tricky to find laptop fan specs on cooling.

I'd be interested to know which one of these you guys think is the better laptop for dolphin emulation. The HP is a bit more expensive, housing the i7-7500U, but could be worth it if yields a better emulation experience with dolphin.

i3 is not worse because its just only 0,1 Ghz lower clock speed, but has newer architecture. Well sort of. We should compare turbo speed, not standard clock speed.

Considering laptops, important thing is good cooling system. Because of it, laptop can maintain turbo clock even at constant load. If you not gonna push intel GPu with high scaling, then it will be even easier to fit thermal power of the whole chip.

Personally saying, i ve never undertood in old times putting i7 in laptop. At that times Laptops had hard time taking heat away. I7 7500u is a bit old but not so much. but i3 8130u is newest. It support higher RAM speed, good for gpu anyway and memory thruoutput. Aaaand... have nothing really more better, well maybe will be easier to cool down because of bit better process technology.

(11-30-2018, 03:18 AM)sirdaniel Wrote: i3 is not worse because its just only 0,1 Ghz lower clock speed, but has newer architecture. Well sort of. We should compare turbo speed, not standard clock speed.

Considering laptops, important thing is good cooling system. Because of it, laptop can maintain turbo clock even at constant load. If you not gonna push intel GPu with high scaling, then it will be even easier to fit thermal power of the whole chip.

Personally saying, i ve never undertood in old times putting i7 in laptop. At that times Laptops had hard time taking heat away. I7 7500u is a bit old but not so much. but i3 8130u is newest. It support higher RAM speed, good for gpu anyway and memory thruoutput. Aaaand... have nothing really more better, well maybe will be easier to cool down because of bit better process technology.

The base clock speed should definitely be compared and taken into account.

Since both models are meant to be energy-efficient you can´t expect both to be using the boosted clocks the whole time, even if they´re provided with adequate cooling.

And because of the above statement, the lower the base clock speed a processor has, the bigger the performance hit that will take place once TurboBoost stops kicking in. The i7-7500U definitely wins on this regard despite being one generation older than the i3.

That said, the difference between both CPUs regarding other facts is marginal (if there is no difference at all). 0.5 GHz difference won´t really matter that much.